Questions and Answers - March 6

1. DAVID BENNETT
(National—Hamilton East) to the Minister
of Finance: How is the Government’s economic
programme helping to keep interest rates lower during this
economic cycle, compared to the previous economic cycle in
the mid-2000s?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): Some increase in interest rates is
inevitable in a growing economy, and the Government will do
what it can to ensure that it does not put pressure on
rising interest rates. In particular, we need to avoid the
mistakes of the previous economic cycle under the previous
Government, where Government spending picked up rapidly,
house prices soared, and household debt increased sharply.
This left households facing floating mortgage rates of
almost 11 percent by 2008 and business interest rates
exceeded 9 percent. Of course, these high interest rates
dampened business and investment growth and sent the export
sector into recession. Floating mortgage rates have fallen
to below 6 percent for a family with a $200,000 mortgage.
That has been a saving of around $200 a week compared with
what they were paying in 2008, and you can be sure that they
will not want to go back to 11 percent interest rates under
a Labour Government.

David Bennett: What
steps is the Government taking to keep Government spending
under control, and how will this help take pressure off
interest rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Two
areas where the Government can work to avoid putting
pressure on rising interest rates are through housing market
regulation and Government spending control. As the Reserve
Bank regularly points out, careful Government spending will
help to keep interest rates lower for longer. If the
Government makes large cash injections into the economy when
it is growing significantly and house prices are already
high, then interest rates will be pushed up further, bearing
in mind that New Zealand households still have quite high
levels of debt. The Government has set a target of returning
to surplus next year by understanding the cost drivers that
lie behind Government spending and getting control of
those.

David Bennett: What approach is
the Government taking to improve housing market regulation
and how will this contribute to preventing a damaging spike
in interest rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
Rapid increases in house prices are damaging for the economy
because they put pressure, through a high exchange rate, on
our export sector. They are a challenge for the Government
because they put pressure on the Government to fund the
affordability gap for households that cannot afford rising
mortgages, and they are unfair on individuals who are trying
to enter the housing market. Demand for housing is rising,
and a turn-round in migration flows is likely to push demand
even higher. Unfortunately, our planning rules and attitudes
within our councils and, to some extent, the Government have
restricted the supply of new houses that can be built in
response to this demand. This is why the Government has
passed legislation in this House,

opposed by Labour, to
streamline planning rules and is working with the Auckland
and Christchurch councils to significantly increase the
supply of housing over the next 2 or 3 years so that low and
middle income families can benefit from homeownership and so
that we can avoid high interest rates and have a healthy
export sector.

Grant Robertson: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. It was such a long answer, I
wondered whether perhaps you had nodded off in the middle of
it, because—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is
not a point of order and it will in itself lead to
disorder.

David Bennett: What
progress—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Can I just ask the member to please cease that loud
barracking while I am calling for a supplementary
question.

David Bennett: What progress is
being made to increase the supply of new housing as part of
the Government’s wider programme to address issues around
housing affordability?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
The decisions on the supply of housing rest with councils,
but the Government can make it easier for them to make
decisions to improve the supply of housing. Statistics New
Zealand last week reported that the trend for new dwelling
consents is at its highest level since September 2007 and
double the level of March 2011. So there are some signs that
the supply of housing is increasing, but if we are going to
avoid significant ongoing increases in house prices and,
therefore, even higher interest rates, we need councils to
make more positive decisions for more housing
supply.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the
Minister accept that the 20 percent increase in electricity
prices over the last 5 years in addition to the 20 percent
rise in house prices, particularly in Auckland, are putting
pressure on the Reserve Bank Governor to increase interest
rates, and that his Government’s failure to control the
inflation coming out of those two sectors is part of the
problem as to why families are going to face higher interest
rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not
accept that, and for one simple reason: the rules around
housing have been made by councils, and it is important that
we work with councils so that they understand that when they
are making rules about a denser city or a more liveable city
or rules that are anti - urban sprawl, those decisions
impact the whole economy. Particularly, they can have a
damaging impact on our export sector, which council planners
do not historically think about very much. So we all have a
job to control Government spending, to make our electricity
market more competitive, and to work with councils for more
housing supply, and if we do our job, New Zealanders will
enjoy lower interest rates than they otherwise
would.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the
Minister believe that the 20 percent increase in electricity
prices over 5 years—more than twice the rate of inflation
across the rest of the economy—is a sign of a competitive
market in the electricity sector, or is it a sign of a
failure of the competition in the electricity
sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The rate of
increase in electricity prices is half what it was when that
member was in Government. It was 8 percent per year, I
think, for 9 years. So this Government has taken the step of
making the market more competitive. That is proving now to
slow the rate of increase. Part of the increase of
electricity prices is an investment programme begun by the
previous Government, which was necessary, to spend
hundreds—in fact, billions—on upgrading the strength of
our electricity grid to ensure security of supply, and now
the effect of that investment is flowing through into
prices. But the market is more competitive. The last thing
New Zealand needs is someone coming in, destroying the
competitive market, putting us back 20 years to where, I
think, Brazil is, and us having to go and learn all the
lessons again.

Dr Russel Norman: With
regard to the electricity market, does he believe it is a
sign of a competitive market when demand falls and prices
rise?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, in the
long run, if demand keeps falling, prices will eventually
come into line with that. But I can tell you that the market
is much better at sorting that out than that member ever
would be if he became the Minister of Energy, because his
policy is all

about Russel Norman setting the prices. In
fact, a better way to do it is electricity companies
knocking on doors, as they are now, all over New Zealand,
offering big discounts.

Power Prices—Current
Figures Compared with 2008

2. Dr RUSSEL
NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister
of Energy and Resources: How much more is an
average New Zealand household that uses 8,000 kWh of power
annually paying for electricity per year as of November 2013
compared to November 2008, according to the Ministry of
Business, Innovation, and Employment’s latest Quarterly
Survey of Domestic Electricity Prices?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): On
average, $70 more per year or, adjusted for inflation, $30
more. I would note that for the period 2000 to November 2008
the average increase was $90 per year or, adjusted for
inflation, $60. I think that it is also important to note
that the quarterly survey does not capture the discounts and
deals that consumers can get from retailers—for example,
up to 15 percent prompt payment discounts are commonplace.
These are not taken into account in that survey. Thanks to
the Government’s reforms of 2010, the system is more
competitive than it has ever been and substantial savings
are available for consumers who choose to shop
around.

Dr Russel Norman: Can he confirm
that according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment the weighted average price of electricity to
families increased by 20 percent from November 2008 to
November 2013—an increase of $360 a year for the typical
family, according to the ministry?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: No. My understanding is that it is an
average of $70 per year or, adjusted for inflation,
$30.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he support
the Electricity Authority’s new inquiry into large
electricity price increases that have been announced in
recent weeks, and does he now concede that there is a
problem with power prices?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: The Minister supports the Electricity
Authority’s approach to regulating this market—the
Electricity Authority, of course, being an initiative of
this Government to improve the performance of the
electricity market, which it quite plainly has done because
the cost increases for electricity are approximately half
what they were in real terms under the previous Government.
I think it is important that the Electricity Authority
independently regulates and manages the market, and that we
encourage as much competition as possible, and that is what
this Government is doing.

Dr Russel
Norman: Does he agree with Steven Joyce, who
yesterday told an energy conference that the Greens-Labour
plan to reduce power bills by $300 a year was “a
‘solution’ in search of a problem”, or does he agree
that a $360-a-year increase in power prices is actually a
problem for Kiwi families?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: Yes, surprisingly, I do agree with Mr Joyce.
He went on to say that it was “a hastily thrown together
press release designed to wipe millions of dollars of value
from companies about to be listed under the mixed ownership
model.” I agree with that. He said: “It was politically
motivated and economically responsible.” I agree with
that. He said: “to call it a ‘policy’ is to elevate to
something it quite clearly is not.” I agree with that. And
he said: “There is basically no international precedent
for the opposition’s ideas.” I agree with that
too.

David Shearer: I have here in my
hand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member
seeking a point of order or a supplementary
question?

David Shearer: A supplementary
question.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member
please ask his supplementary question.

David
Shearer: And I am. On behalf of the people who have
sent me their electricity bills, which have gone up by up to
14 percent, my question to the Minister is: does he believe
that electricity prices are currently rising too quickly?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Nobody likes it when
prices go up. That is a given. But the prices of electricity
have gone up less than the actual after-tax wages of New
Zealanders, which have gone up 23.4 percent since September
2008. I do not care what the member has got in his hand.
There is no way he can argue that point.

David
Shearer: Does he disagree, therefore, with the
people who have written to me saying their bills have gone
up by up to 14 percent, and does he say to them that it is
not a problem?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I
said, nobody likes it when prices go up. The way to deal
with that is to have more competition, and that is what this
Government is encouraging—more competition. I would
encourage the people who have written to Mr Shearer not to
waste their time doing that, but to spend their time
searching for opportunities, through the switching website
for example, to reduce their power costs, because that is
actually what is happening to those people who are giving
that a go.

Wage Rates—Government
Policy

3. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy
Leader—Labour) to the Minister of
Finance: What will he do to “spread some of the
benefits of growth” when hourly wage rates have only grown
by 1.6 percent in the year to December 2013, which is close
to 0 percent in real terms, when 45 percent of listed
corporates have double-digit profit growth?

Hon
BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member
continues to use the wrong numbers on wages. Last year,
average hourly wages went up 2.9 percent compared with
inflation of 1.6 percent. The year before, they went up 2.6
percent compared with inflation of 0.9 percent. The year
before that, they went up 2.8 percent compared with
inflation of 1.6 percent. The member mistakenly uses the
labour cost index, and deliberately, as a way of measuring
what wages people earn, and it simply does not measure
that.

Hon David Parker: Does the labour
cost index measure the change in hourly rates from year to
year, and did that show growth of only 1.6 percent in the
year to December 2013?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
The labour cost index is an index of labour cost, like the
CPI is an index of consumer cost. It does not measure what
people earn. What people earn is measured by the quarterly
employment survey. For the last 3 years wages have gone up
over 7 percent at a time when inflation has been around 4
percent, so real wages have been rising.

Jami-Lee
Ross: By how much have wages after tax grown in the
past 5½ years, and how does this compare
historically?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Since the
September quarter of 2008, real after-tax wages have
increased by 12.9 percent. In other words, the average wage,
after you allow for inflation and tax, has gone up 12.9
percent in a little over 5 years. Those have been 5 pretty
difficult years, but it compares well historically. For
example, over the 9 years from September 1999 to September
2008, real after-tax wages rose 4.4 percent, not 12.9
percent as it has in the last 5 years. Average workers have
been considerably better off under this Government than
under the previous Labour Government, because their
after-tax wages have gone up much faster, despite the fact
that we have had a major recession.

Hon David
Parker: Do the census figures published in the New
Zealand Herald just before Christmas last year show that the
median income in Māngere and Ōtāhuhu had dropped by 16
percent, and in Ōtara, Papatoetoe, and Manurewa had dropped
by 17 percent since the previous census, and does this
represent the brighter future that he promised these
hard-working New Zealanders 5 years ago, or is it the census
that has got the figures wrong?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: Well, I would have to look at the
details—

Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s
called the census, Bill—the census.

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: Well, because he keeps using the wrong
measure for the increase in wages—it could be that he is
using the wrong measure for statistics. But I can tell you
that if the people in those suburbs have been hit by the
recession, what they need is a growing economy with

more
jobs, because the one thing that will lift those wages is
getting jobs. If there is one thing that Labour and the
Greens are against, it is more jobs, because every policy
that this Government has introduced to give those people
more hope has been opposed by Labour and the
Greens.

Hon David Parker: How can he deny
that the benefits of growth are not being shared fairly when
homeownership is now at its lowest level in more than half a
century? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! [Interruption] Order! The question was to the Hon
Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact
that house prices are rising pretty significantly does mean
that people who currently own houses in some places get a
greater share of the increase in wealth, and people who are
locked out of the market do not get the benefits of those
wealth increases. The best thing that the Opposition can do
to help that is support the Government’s measures to
improve the access of low and middle income people to the
housing market. So far the Opposition has opposed all of the
measures that the Government has taken to give low and
middle income New Zealanders better
opportunities.

Hon David Parker: How can
he deny that the benefits of growth are not being shared
fairly when rental prices have increased by around 15
percent, on average, across New Zealand over the past 3
years, yet wage rates have increased by only 5.5 percent?
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon
David Parker is asking the question to the Hon Bill
English.

Hon David Parker: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! I am on my feet. I now require an answer from the Hon
Bill English.

Hon David Parker: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. You were looking at me. I know I
asked the question. It is those members who need to know who
is going to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: That
is not a point of order. That is creating further disorder
in the House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They have
had a very good answer and now they will get an excellent
one.

Mr SPEAKER: And I would be grateful
for an answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the
member is concerned about the impact of the cost of housing
on inequality, then he should support the Government’s
measures, like special housing areas, which are designed
precisely to reduce that inequality. In fact, the reason the
member talks about housing as a driver of inequality now is
that the measures of income inequality do not suit his
argument. He has had to concede that the rich are not
getting richer and the poor getting poorer, that that is
simply not true, so now he is trying to change the
argument.

Hon David Parker: How can he
deny that the benefits of growth are not being shared fairly
when there are now more than 360,000 children and older
people living in poverty, and many of those children are
living in the households of working parents?

Hon
BILL ENGLISH: We could argue about the fact that
the measure he is using, which uses median incomes,
overlooks the fact that all of those people he is talking
about—children and older people—are in households that
have had significant increases in their income, despite the
fact that there has been a recession. In fact, the version
of poverty the Government is most focused on is persistent
deprivation, which is the hard end of poverty. That is where
people really get trapped for life. We are advancing a
programme of improving housing options, reducing welfare
dependency, and dealing with the most difficult families
constructively, in a way to give them the opportunity to get
into work and realise their aspirations.

Oil and
Gas Exploration—Classification in Exclusive Economic
Zone

4. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki)
to the Minister for the
Environment: What recent announcements has the
Government made on the classification for drilling for oil
and gas in New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic
Zone?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the
Environment): Last week I announced that activities
involved in exploratory drilling for oil and gas in the
exclusive economic zone will be classified as non-notified
discretionary under the new exclusive economic zone
legislation regulations. This

completes the
classifications of all components of the oil and gas
extraction process. Operators will now be subject to
Environmental Protection Authority oversight for each of the
four stages. Initial seismic surveying and prospecting is
monitored as a permitted activity, then separate
discretionary marine consents are required at the
exploration stage and any production and decommissioning
phases and, as part of that, are fully assessed for the
actual and potential effects of the activity on the
environment and existing interests. For the first time, the
environmental impact of the full cycle of the oil and gas
process in the exclusive economic zone will be overseen and
minimised by a robust, independent
regulator.

Jacqui Dean: How will New
Zealanders get to have a say on oil and gas activities
occurring in the exclusive economic zone?

Hon AMY
ADAMS: Until now the public has never had the right
to have a say on activities taking place in the exclusive
economic zone, including drilling for oil. Now before an oil
company can make a single dollar of profit it has to go in
front of the people of New Zealand and make its case in a
full public process. This is in clear contrast to the period
between 2000 and 2008, when 36 wells were drilled in the
exclusive economic zone, including four production wells,
with no public comment and no opportunity for submissions.
In addition, during the exploration phase, the applicant is
now required to have consulted with iwi and affected users,
and the Environmental Protection Authority has the ability
to call for evidence from any parties it determines
necessary.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to
table a document. It is available on the Ministry for the
Environment website, but it is incredibly difficult to find,
so—

Mr SPEAKER: Just briefly describe
the document.

Gareth Hughes: It is a
summary of submissions that found that only four people out
of 22,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If
members want to search for that, I am sure they are capable
of finding it.

Question No. 5 to
Minister

GRANT ROBERTSON
(Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave of the
House to hold this question over until Tuesday as an
additional question to see whether the Minister of
Justice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is
sought for this particular question to be held
over.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. That is actually the third time today
that that member has made reference to someone not being
here. He made a point at the end of that point of
order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard
enough. I moved to put the leave very quickly, but if the
member did refer to the absence of any member in this House,
that is completely out of order and it is not to happen
again. The member has sought leave for this question to be
held over. I am putting that leave. Leave is sought to hold
that question over. Is there any objection? There
is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. It does go back to the ruling that you
have made. It has been a long-term ability of members to ask
and on occasion be granted the ability to hold over
Ministers’ questions when they are not
available—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not
need any further assistance. There is no problem with the
member seeking leave, but referring to and highlighting the
absence of a member from the House is out of order. Members
can seek leave but they do not need to highlight the absent
members. All members, on many occasions, are away from this
House when they are on other parliamentary business. That is
accepted. The Standing Orders are quite clear that members
must not refer to the absence of a member in this House. The
member has sought leave, I have put the leave, and that
leave has been denied. That is the end of this matter, and
Grant Robertson can proceed with his question.

Justice, Minister—Potential Conflict of
Interest

5. GRANT ROBERTSON
(Labour—Wellington Central) to the
Minister of Justice: When she told the
House yesterday “I had previously told Oravida that it
could not use my name or photograph to endorse or promote
its business products or services” when was that and what
specific circumstances did it relate to?

Hon
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf
of the Minister
of

Justice: It was in October
and related to her upcoming trip to China. The Minister made
those comments orally when she was approached to visit the
Oravida branch in China. She was invited to visit its China
branch last year when she was at Oravida’s Auckland office
opening in October last year and mentioned she would be
travelling to China on ministerial business.

Grant
Robertson: Did she or her office follow up with
Oravida whether or not it had used her name or photograph,
following her visit to its Quay Street building in October
to open its new offices?

Hon CHRISTOPHER
FINLAYSON: I very much doubt it. One does not go on
some kind of jihad or super-inquiry to find out whether a
photograph is being used. The Minister is very photogenic.
Her photo would be taken on many occasions, unlike that
member’s. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! And that sort of answer does not assist the order of
the House.

Grant Robertson: Why, given
her responsibilities as Minister of Justice, was she opening
the offices of Oravida in Auckland in October?

Hon
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: She supports New Zealand
Inc.; that is why she did it. When she was in China, she
also supported New Zealand Inc. by going down and having a
flat white at Cafe Flat White, which is a company with very
strong New Zealand interests. There is nothing surprising or
underhand in any of this. She is a loyal New
Zealander.

Grant Robertson: Did she ever
make contact with the Cabinet Office about a potential
conflict of interest, given her husband’s directorship of
Oravida, before this week?

Hon CHRISTOPHER
FINLAYSON: I doubt it. It would be a bizarre
proposition to seek the permission of the Prime Minister to
pop into Cafe Flat White in Beijing for a cup of coffee or
into Oravida for a glass of milk.

Grant
Robertson: From whom at Oravida did she receive the
invitation to visit its Shanghai offices: was it her
husband, who is a director of the firm; was it the Prime
Minister’s golf buddy Stone Shi, who donated more than
$55,000 to the National Party; was it Peter Goodfellow, the
president of the National Party, whose company is a supplier
to Oravida; or was it Julia Xu, with whom she was going to
Hong Kong a month later?

Hon CHRISTOPHER
FINLAYSON: I do not know the exact name. I would
practically guarantee it would be none of those people. But
in answer to the member’s unpleasant question, I will find
out and tell him.

Better Public Services
Targets—Youth Guarantee

6. COLIN KING
(National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for
Tertiary Education, Skills
and

Employment: How is the Youth
Guarantee Scheme helping the Government achieve the Better
Public Services target of 85 percent of all 18-year-olds
achieving NCEA Level two or an equivalent qualification in
2017? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I
just might have to ask for the family discussion to cease.
Thank you.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills and Employment): Ha, ha! Last
month I released the first Youth Guarantee monitoring report
by the Ministry of Education. The report showed the real
difference that the Youth Guarantee scheme is making to the
achievement of at-risk young people. The report showed that
in 2012, 83 percent of 18-year-olds in Youth Guarantee
secondary-tertiary programmes—including trades
academies—achieved the National Certificate of Educational
Achievement (NCEA) at level 2 or equivalent, compared with
70 percent of a similar group of young people who had not
participated in trades academies. There

has also been a
similar improvement for students in Youth Guarantee
fees-free courses in tertiary education. For 2012, 62
percent of 18-year-olds in fees-free tertiary courses had
achieved NCEA level 2 or equivalent, compared with 52
percent of a similar group who had not
participated.

Colin King: Why did the
Government introduce the Youth Guarantee
scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A level 2
qualification is enormously important. It gives young people
opportunities for further education and employment, and
equips them for modern life. Frankly, if they do not obtain
at least a level 2 qualification it gets very challenging.
The reality is that some students are more motivated to
learn and pass qualifications away from a traditional school
setting, and if the Government does not provide
opportunities for those people, they simply leave school
altogether with no qualifications at all—an outcome that
would be bad for them, bad for the Government, and, of
course, bad for New Zealand society. The recent monitoring
report showed that because of Youth Guarantee, around 1,000
more young people remained in education at age 17, and many
more of them achieved NCEA level 2.

Colin
King: How is the Youth Guarantee scheme being
expanded in 2014?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This
year there will be around 10,000 places for Youth Guarantee
feesfree courses, and another 4,500 places in
secondary-tertiary programmes. We are also expanding the
Youth Guarantee scheme to 18 and 19-year-olds participating
in fees-free tertiary qualifications at foundation levels.
Because of Youth Guarantee, trades academies, and, of
course, the new vocational pathways, we are confident that
every single teenager has a fees-free path to a level 3
qualification, giving them access to training and skills.
Last year I also announced that all fees-free level 1 and 2
education will be for 20 to 24-year-olds, as well. That
means anyone under the age of 25 who is yet to obtain a
level 2 qualification will be able to obtain one fees-free,
whether that is at a secondary school, or through Youth
Guarantee or a tertiary provider, such as a private training
establishment or a polytechnic. This is a very significant
commitment to the achievement of New Zealand’s young
people.

Women's Affairs,
Ministry—Confidence

7. CAROL BEAUMONT
(Labour) to the Minister of Women’s
Affairs: Does she have confidence in the Ministry
of Women’s Affairs given their 2013 Annual Report shows
that six out of seven policy outcomes have stayed the same
or gone backwards in the last past year; if so,
why?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister of Women's
Affairs): Yes, I do have confidence in the Ministry
of Women’s Affairs. The seven policy outcomes referred to
in the annual report are aspirational targets where the
ministry seeks to achieve improved results for women through
influencing and informing other departments’ and
ministries’ work. When seeking to effect real change, it
is necessary to aim high. I thank the member so much for
allowing me, ahead of International Women’s Day on
Saturday, to expand on the great work that the Ministry of
Women’s Affairs is doing, and I look forward to many
supplementary questions to further expand on a topic I feel
very strongly about.

Carol Beaumont: As
the Minister is “interested in addressing the factors that
still hamper women’s success”, what steps has she taken
to promote the addressing of pay inequality like that faced
by aged-care workers receiving wages just above the minimum
wage?

Hon JO GOODHEW: In terms of
actually addressing what is the gender pay gap, which in New
Zealand is currently at 10.1 percent—therefore, it is
higher than it should be, because no pay gap is really what
we should be aspiring towards—the Ministry of Women’s
Affairs has looked at the many reasons why in a workforce
there is gender bias that stops women from getting ahead.
Additional to that, there are tools—and I am going to give
you one very good example—that will actually make sure
that young women choose to be in non-traditional areas of
work. I can use as a good example the Occupation Outlook app
that the Hon Steven Joyce has actually launched, which gives
women the opportunity to see how they can improve their
incomes by choosing the sort of

qualification where they
will get a good income, and they can have a pathway that
leads to them having a higher income.

Carol
Beaumont: What efforts has the Minister made to
advise her colleague the Minister of Labour about the issue
of equal pay for work of equal value, which would lift
women’s wages and improve their economic
independence?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I am able
to report that I speak with many of my colleagues about the
issues that face women. However, I do not ever presume to
tell them how to do their jobs.

Carol
Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
fail to see how that answers a very specific question about
talking to the Minister of Labour about equal pay for work
of equal value.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think
on this occasion it actually did address the question. What
we will do to move things forward is I will allow the member
an additional supplementary question. In my mind that
question was addressed. I accept it was not to the
member’s satisfaction.

Carol Beaumont:
What assurances has she sought from her colleague the
Minister of Labour about the gendered impact of changes to
collective bargaining, which could lead to a driving down of
wages for women workers?

Hon JO GOODHEW:
I note that the member talks about a hypothetical possible
result. I have many conversations with my colleagues about
outcome improvements for women, and these conversations will
continue.

Carol Beaumont: What
representations has she made to the Minister of Justice or
other Cabinet colleagues about improving rape prevention
education in schools?

Hon JO GOODHEW:
What I am able to say is that amongst colleagues we are
looking at every avenue in terms of addressing sexual
violence, and that includes talking to other colleagues,
including the Minister of Education, the Minister of Police,
the Minister of Justice, and other Ministers across the
whole spectrum. This is a Government that has set a Better
Public Services target to reduce crime and violent
offending, and we have seen—

Sue
Moroney: Oh, whoopee!

Hon JO
GOODHEW: The member may not be interested, but she
may not realise that women are overrepresented in the
statistics, and we have seen real change, a real lessening
of violent crime, and at the same time we are able to say
that that means that many women are better
off.

Sue Moroney: As we prepare to
celebrate International Women’s Day this weekend, will the
Minister vote against the second reading in Parliament next
week of my bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months,
and thereby keep her record intact as being the only
Minister of Women’s Affairs in New Zealand to have ever
voted against paid parental leave?

Mr
SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial
responsibility, the Hon Jo Goodhew.

Hon JO
GOODHEW: In so far as I have ministerial
responsibility, what I can say as Minister of Women’s
Affairs is that the current Government is looking at changes
to the number of weeks under paid parental leave. However,
this is a Government that seeks to actually balance the
books, unlike the previous Government. In doing so, we have
to make difficult but necessary fiscally sound and
responsible decisions—something that certainly did not
occur to the previous Government.

Disputes
Tribunals—Reforms

8. SCOTT SIMPSON
(National—Coromandel) to the Minister for
Courts: How is the Government improving the way the
Disputes Tribunal works to make it easier for New Zealanders
to resolve civil disputes?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS
(Minister for Courts): I have been determined to
create a modern 21st century justice system that better
serves the needs of court users. In disputes tribunal, that
means allowing online applications so that people can apply
quickly and easily—anytime, anywhere—which is something
a quarter of applicants are taking up; it means centralising
the processing of applications to speed up processing times
and to leave court staff to focus on administering court
cases; it means getting key tribunal decisions published
online to make

processes more transparent; and it means
empowering our court staff and supporting tribunal referees
in trying new ways of working to provide a quicker and
better service.

Scott Simpson: What
difference are parties to cases seeing from these
improvements in the way the disputes tribunal
operates?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Our
modernisation initiatives are making a measurable difference
in the speed at which disputes tribunal users get results.
Online applications and centralised processing mean that it
rarely takes more than 2 days for applicants to get a
hearing scheduled and 90 percent hear back on the same day.
Our focus on faster delivery has resulted in a 15 percent
drop in the age of cases last year, falling from 75 days to
64 days. This means the roughly 350 individuals and
businesses who come to the tribunal each week are spending
less time resolving disputes and more time getting on with
their lives and businesses.

Internal Affairs,
Minister—Ministerial Requirements

9.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the
Minister of Internal Affairs: What action,
if any, has he taken this year to show the Prime Minister
that he has met the highest ethical standards required by
Section 2.53 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon PETER
DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): All my
actions since becoming the Minister of Internal Affairs have
been in accord with all of the provisions of the Cabinet
Manual.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he take
responsibility to ensure that all answers the Prime Minister
gives in this House in relation to the Minister’s
suitability to hold office are accurate, and if they are in
any way inaccurate, that the Prime Minister is given
accurate information in order to correct his
answer?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Answers that the
Prime Minister gives, like answers that any Minister gives,
are the responsibility of the person giving the answer. I
have confidence in the answers the Prime Minister has
given.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Have all
answers the Prime Minister has given in relation to the
Minister in the House this year been accurate?

Mr
SPEAKER: The Hon Peter Dunne, in so far as he has
ministerial responsibility.

Hon PETER
DUNNE: I am confident that they are, but the
ultimate responsibility—as rests with me in the case of
questions asked of me—rests with the Prime Minister in
respect of questions asked of him. I think he demonstrates
day by day, week by week, in this House that he is more than
on top of those matters and can best any of the questioners
who are seeking to outwit him.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: Did he approach the Prime Minister or the
Prime Minister’s office following the Prime Minister’s
answer to question No. 10 on 19 February in relation to the
making available of the draft Kitteridge report on the
Government Communications Security Bureau, wherein the Prime
Minister said that he relied on the Minister’s assurances
in this House to inform the Prime Minister that he has never
given any such assurance in this Chamber?

Hon
PETER DUNNE: I refer to my previous answer about
responsibility for answers, and I have not discussed these
matters with the Prime Minister around the timing of that
question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he
prepared to make the Prime Minister’s statement I have
just referred to in relation to his suitability to hold his
current office accurate, albeit retrospectively, by today
assuring the House that he did not make the draft Kitteridge
report on the Government Communications Security Bureau
available to a Fairfax journalist.

Mr
SPEAKER: I will leave the Minister to answer the
question, but again the member is now going into something
that, in my opinion, the Minister, as the Minister of
Internal Affairs, does not have responsibility
for.

Hon PETER DUNNE: This question has
been asked in a variety of forms over recent weeks. It has
been answered by the Prime Minister and me, and I stand by
those answers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he
discussed his oneirataxia with the Prime Minister?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I have discussed a number
of things with the Prime Minister, but, frankly, the meaning
of that word escapes me and I am sure it is something that
if I had a dictionary I might bother to look
up.

Pacific Island Communities—Skills
Training

10. ALFRED NGARO (National)
to the Minister of Pacific Island
Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to
lift the skills of Pacific people in New
Zealand?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of
Pacific Island Affairs): The National-led
Government has introduced a range of programmes and plans to
lift the skills of Pacific people. For example, Budget 2013
included the funding for the Māori and Pasifika Trades
Training Initiative. That is $43 million in funding over 4
years to provide greater opportunities for young Pacific
people to gain qualifications and better employment
prospects. The Government is also supporting Auckland
University of Technology’s Manukau campus expansion, and
this will see the number of fulltime-equivalent students at
Auckland University of Technology increase from the current
940 fulltime-equivalent students to 4,100
fulltime-equivalent students by 2020, and almost half of
these students will be Pacific.

Alfred
Ngaro: How is the Government helping to raise the
achievement of Pacific students?

Hon Peseta SAM
LOTU-IIGA: Government programmes such as Pasifika
Power Up, Youth Guarantee, Achievement 2013-17, and trades
academies are making a significant contribution to lifting
achievement. Last month Minister Parata announced that
National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2
achievement among Pacific students in 2013 had risen to 71.8
percent. That is an increase of 16.5 percent since 2008.
Tertiary course completion rates for Pacific students at all
levels were up to 74 percent in 2012, and that is compared
with 54 percent in 2007. Yesterday, of course, Minister
Joyce announced the new Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-19,
and one of its six priorities is about boosting the
achievement of Māori and Pacific students.

Su'a
William Sio: Given the Minister’s responses that
his Government is so successful in doing things to lift the
skills of Pacific people in New Zealand, will he also take
the credit for lifting Pacific people not in education,
employment, or training from 16.7 percent in 2008 to 20.1
percent in 2013?

Hon Peseta SAM
LOTU-IIGA: I do not have those figures to hand, but
what I can say is that since this Government has been in
power, and since the second quarter of 2009, the number of
Pacific people employed has gone up from 97,700 to over
108,200—over 11,000 more people are
employed.

Canterbury, Recovery—Human Rights
Commission Report

11. DENIS O'ROURKE (NZ
First) to the Minister for Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery: Does he accept the conclusion
in the Human Rights Commission’s report Monitoring Human
Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery that “many
people affected by the earthquakes continue to experience
deteriorating standards of living and impacts on their
quality of life that go beyond the immediate effects of the
disaster”?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Associate Minister for
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery: No, the Minister does not accept this
conclusion as there are considerable programmes of work
under way to improve residential conditions in Christchurch.
This includes the Winter Make it Right campaign, which is
focused on increasing the winter resilience of homes in
Greater Christchurch and is also being made available to
help those with housing issues following this week’s
floods. Other work includes the residential advisory
service, the Ministry of Social Development’s support
services, the provision of temporary housing, and the
completion of more than 150,000 home repairs by the Fletcher
EQR programme. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
also regularly surveys and monitors well-being in Canterbury
and there is a team within the department focused on social
and cultural recovery.

Denis O'Rourke:
Given that reply, does the Minister agree with the chief
commissioner that there needs to be new kinds of
people-centred thinking, especially to ensure that people
have secure, habitable, and affordable homes?

Hon
AMY ADAMS: I know that the bulk of the
commissioner’s report actually relates to issues around
housing, and I can assure the member that those issues are
all being worked through by the Government under a number of
agencies. In respect of the different ways of thinking, I
can assure the member that the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Authority is leading a number of communityled
initiatives such as the Choice Christchurch summertime
events and other projects. We are working through supporting
communities in their homes and in their own ways to deal
with these issues, and I think we are doing it
successfully.

Denis O'Rourke: What does
the Minister say to the thousands of Christchurch people who
are now facing a fourth winter since the quakes without a
secure, warm, dry, affordable, and properly repaired
home?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I think the Minister
would certainly be the first to acknowledge that the times
have been incredibly difficult for those in Canterbury who
are still seeking to resolve their claims, but he would
equally reiterate that this has been an event of unheralded
proportions. The fact is that they are incredibly difficult
issues that are being worked through. But I would suggest to
that member that he, like all members in this House, ensures
that members of the public in Canterbury are made aware of
the services available to them, like the Winter Make it
Right programme to make urgent weathertight and heating
repairs to properties, like the Canterbury Earthquake
Temporary Accommodation Service to provide housing where
that is needed, and like the residential advisory service
and the complaints service to help them progress through
their claims.

Denis O'Rourke: With the
already historically high home rentals still increasing
faster than anywhere else in New Zealand, what does the
Minister say to Christchurch people who are having to pay
those rentals, such as the person who told me recently that
the best he could do, for a fourbedroom house for his
family, was to agree to a rental of $980 per week while his
own home is still under repair?

Hon AMY
ADAMS: As I mentioned, a number of the issues
referred to in the commissioner’s report relate to these
housing-based issues, and they are being looked at and
considered by the Minister of Housing. I am sure that if the
member wants to put specific issues to the Minister of
Housing, he would be happy to come back to him. What I would
say to him is that the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary
Accommodation Service has been set up for the very purpose
of helping to connect homeowners in need of short-term
accommodation with the available housing.

Denis
O'Rourke: What does the Minister say to the
thousands of people who are still suffering interminable
delays because their insurers and the Earthquake Commission
cannot even agree whether their repairs will be under the
$100,000 cap or over it?

Hon AMY ADAMS:
What we would say to them, as I said before, is that this is
an incredibly difficult period for people in Canterbury. We
are aware of that. We acknowledge that. But it does not take
away from the fact that this is an unprecedented event not
only in its size but in the complexity of the issues.
Everybody engaged in the process is doing all that they can
to resolve it as fast as possible.

Denis
O'Rourke: What does the Minister say to the people
whose homes are being repeatedly flooded because of
dysfunctional and unrepaired drainage systems?

Hon
AMY ADAMS: There is no doubt that the flooding
events of the last week have been incredibly difficult for a
community that is already dealing with more than it should
have to deal with. There are a number of issues around that,
one of which is that this is being regarded as a onein-
100-year flood. The timing of it is cruel and not fair on
the people of Canterbury, but it is what it is, and the
reality remains that everybody is working as hard as they
can. Perhaps that member

should direct his queries to the
Christchurch City Council flood prevention strategy and see
where that is at.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has he
apologised to John Key and Cantabrians for turning the Prime
Minister’s statement that “No one will be worse off as a
result of these quakes.” from a promise of hope and
support to a lie?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I
completely reject the assertion in that
question.

Solid Energy—Discussions with Indian
Government Ministers

12. CATHERINE
DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Energy
and Resources: Has he had any discussions with any
Indian Government Ministers about selling Solid Energy
assets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of
Energy and Resources): He met with the Indian
Minister of Steel, Shri Beni Prasad Verma, on 30 January
this year. His message was that the Government openly
encourages international investment in our petroleum and
minerals sector, but that matters relating to joint
developments are commercial matters. He did not engage with
the Minister of Steel on selling Solid Energy assets, and
nor would that be within his responsibility as the Minister
of Energy and Resources.

Catherine
Delahunty: How does he reconcile his response to
the primary question with the comment made by the Indian
Minister of Steel following this meeting: “We are looking
forward to the Government of New Zealand … allocating
mineral assets to Indian public sector companies on a
Government to Government basis.”?

Hon STEVEN
JOYCE: He too has read that comment. The Minister
of Steel made a number of comments during the meeting, but
the Minister of Energy and Resources was very clear that any
discussions in regard to commercial arrangements needed to
be had with Solid Energy and did not engage with him on
comments that he made.

Catherine
Delahunty: Can he confirm that there are no planned
Government to Government allocations of New Zealand
coalmines or mining rights to Indian public sector
companies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. From
time to time individual companies—including, for example,
Landcorp and Solid Energy—buy and sell assets, but there
is no plan for a Government to Government interaction in
that regard.

Catherine Delahunty:
Therefore, will he rule out the partial sale of Solid Energy
or the sale of Solid Energy’s coalmines or mining rights
to any foreign Government or foreign public sector
company?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is not
his responsibility, but I would make the point to the member
that, actually, New Zealand State-owned enterprises do buy
and sell assets from time to time. They do under this
Government; they did under the previous Government,
according to how it works. The member may have noticed that
Solid Energy is in some difficulty, and I am sure that it is
exploring all its options.

Supposedly, Winston Peters’ victory in Northland has exposed the simmering dissatisfaction with the government that exists out in the provinces. Yet it remains to be seen whether this defeat will have much significance – and not simply because if and when Labour resumes business as usual in the Northland seat at the next election, Peters’ hold on it could simply evaporate.

On Saturday, National’s electorate vote declined by 7,000 votes, as the 9,000 majority it won last September turned into a 4,000 vote deficit – mainly because Labour supporters followed the nod and wink given by Labour leader Andrew Little, and voted tactically for Peters. In the process, Labour’s vote went down from nearly 9,000 votes six months ago, to only 1,315 on Saturday. More>>

The National Party Government has today revealed that the national environmental report topics for this year will, incredibly, exclude New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Green Party said today. More>>

ALSO:

Reports that German privacy laws may have contributed to the Germanwings air crash have prompted New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner to reassure the public that the Privacy Act is no impediment to medical practitioners notifying appropriate authorities to a pilot’s health concerns. More>>

The settlement includes a $13.5 million payment the government made in June 2013, as well as land in the Taranaki region. The settlement also includes four culturally significant sites, the Waipakari Reserve, Te Kohinga Reserve, Te Ngutu o te Manu and Te Poho o Taranaki. More>>

Supposedly, New Zealand’s destiny lies in Asia, and that was one of Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s rationales for his bungled reforms at MFAT. OK. So, if that’s the case why didn’t Prime Minister John Key attend the state funeral on Sunday of Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew? More>>

The panel choosing the flag options has no visual artists at all. Now, I’ve kerned the odd ligature in my time and I know my recto from my French curve so I thought I’d offer a few suggestions before they get past their depth. More>>

ALSO:

In releasing two reports today, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has highlighted a number of significant problems with the way in which Police deal with people who are detained in Police cells. More>>

The complaints follow recent public allegations about GCSB activities. The complaints, and these public allegations, raise wider questions regarding the collection, retention and sharing of communications data. More>>

ALSO:

Professor Jane Kelsey: ‘As anticipated, the deal gives foreign investors from the TPPA countries special rights, and the power to sue the government in private offshore tribunals for massive damages if new laws, or even court decisions, significantly affected their bottom line’. More>>

Gordon Campbell: The myth of competence that’s been woven around Steven Joyce – the Key government’s “Minister of Everything” and “Mr Fixit” – has been disseminated from high-rises to hamlets, across the country... More>>